Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
    Yep, this is pretty much the team I wanted. Well, except I'd trade Jamaal and JO for some milk-drinking prospects, and let the team grow and learn together. The wins would come in about 2 years when OJ Mayo or Eric Gordon are lighting it up for us.



    The worst that could happen is we end up like the Hawks.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

      Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post
      The worst that could happen is we end up like the Hawks.
      That'd be the worst.....their courtside tickets are $50 more than ours too. LOL

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
        Yep, this is pretty much the team I wanted. Well, except I'd trade Jamaal and JO for some milk-drinking prospects, and let the team grow and learn together. The wins would come in about 2 years when OJ Mayo or Eric Gordon are lighting it up for us.
        Has anyone on this board read a single damn thing about OJ Mayo's history? I mean Jesus Christ people do some research. We talk about not wanting anymore head cases, but you want bring in a guy like Mayo??? Are you kidding me? The guys nuttier than Jack and Ron put together, and if you think I'm joking watch what he does to USC this year. If you think his 12/27 shooting night with 8 turnovers was an anomaly then you simply have not done your homework on the guy. Sure he can score, but hes a horrible decision maker and I pity the poor franchise that thinks this screw up is going to be their future superstar let alone their future superstar PG.

        I mean c'mon people the guy had to go to FOUR different high schools! FOUR! You're only in high school for FOUR freakin' years!

        Sorry for the Mayo rant and its not just aimed at you in particular EIndar, but seriously if we draft Mayo I will strongly consider not being a Pacer fan any longer because it will show me that our front office is officially clueless. And this is coming from a guy that would welcome pretty much any current NBA player on to this team at this point. Give me another 4 years of Ron Artest before you even give me two years of OJ Mayo. I mean that sincerely.
        Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-15-2007, 02:28 AM.


        Comment


        • #19
          Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

          I reject the notion that it is an either/or scenario.

          You either have talent or you have good characters is not something I believe in.

          What we are seeing is the end result of years of keeping talent at the expense of character and then still to this day not totally purging some of the character issues we have.

          So I guess to answer the main question, no.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            From a character standpoint, yes this is closer to the team many fans want to see.

            However, I reject the notion that purging bad character guys automatically leads to a bad team. Instead, I look it as the first step to recovery. All in all, I am more optimistic than I was one year ago.
            Portland got rid of bad character guys and got talent to replace it, but it took them awhile. They got rid of guys like Rasheed, Bonzi and Damon Stoudamire. They got nothing in return for those guys, but in the NBA never underestimate the power of nothing (as in no long term contracts).

            Those guys eventually rebuilt through the draft. Took some time, but now it looks like they're getting back into the swing of things. They had to take their lumps for a couple years, but it looks like they've got a nice situation right now.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

              I think alot of pacers fan were expecting us to be like the spurs,have high character guys.Maybe not crazy winning like the spurs do,but better than we were with artest/sjax.
              LoneGranger33 said
              Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                No its not the team I wanted..
                I dont like anything about this current team ..
                I wish they'd have had a fire sale and started completely over.
                that I could have lived with..
                This team has no athletic ability...poor passing team and will struggle on the offensive boards...
                Like I said ...30-51 if theyre lucky... theyre 3-5 right now so theyre on pace

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                  in all honesty - no

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                    Mostly yes.

                    While far from perfect, I feel much better about this team than in the last
                    couple of years.

                    And as a result, will be attending more games this season than in the last
                    couple put together.

                    They have shown flashes of promise, and am finding their transformation
                    fascinating.

                    Am not overly worried about the current losing streak...it will not last
                    forever.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                      I like this team.

                      Once Tinsley is gone I will really like this team.

                      I do not think this team lacks talent.

                      I think that it's quite possible that if JO and Tins were to dissapear somehow, that the Pacers would start playing like Philadelphia did at the end of last year once Iverson went away. Look at Iguodala's numbers once Iverson was gone. We could very well see a similar jump from Granger once he knows he's the best player on the team.

                      All in all, there were five players I've wanted to see go in the last few years. Here they are in order.

                      1. Tinsley
                      2. Artest
                      3. Jackson
                      4. Harrington
                      5. JO
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                        I like this team.

                        Once Tinsley is gone I will really like this team.

                        I do not think this team lacks talent.

                        I think that it's quite possible that if JO and Tins were to dissapear somehow, that the Pacers would start playing like Philadelphia did at the end of last year once Iverson went away. Look at Iguodala's numbers once Iverson was gone. We could very well see a similar jump from Granger once he knows he's the best player on the team.

                        All in all, there were five players I've wanted to see go in the last few years. Here they are in order.

                        1. Tinsley
                        2. Artest
                        3. Jackson
                        4. Harrington
                        5. JO

                        I'm with you, 100%.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                          I understand the problems you guys have with these guys but I'd like to point out something. These are the numbers the last three seasons for those 5 players that have been listed.

                          1. 3.5 RPG 6.2 APG 1.6 SPG 12.5 PPG .322 3PT%

                          2. 5.9 RPG 3.5 APG 2.1 SPG 18.6 PPG .336 3PT%

                          3. 3.8 RPG 3.0 APG 1.2 SPG 16.6 PPG .342 3PT%

                          4. 6.7 RPG 2.7 APG 1.1 SPG 17.5 PPG .375 3PT%

                          5. 9.3 RPG 2.3 APG 0.6 SPG 20.9 PPG 2.4 BPG
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                            Those 5 guys collectively represent everything this team is lacking. The ability to create off the dribble, perimeter defense, interior defense, 3PT shooting, ability to force turnovers & scoring.
                            I'm in these bands
                            The Humans
                            Dr. Goldfoot
                            The Bar Brawlers
                            ME

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              I mean c'mon people the guy had to go to FOUR different high schools! FOUR! You're only in high school for FOUR freakin' years!
                              In all honesty, he's been playing at the varsity level since 7th grade. Not defending, not even close. Just throwing it out there.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: In all honesty,Isnt this the team most of you wanted?

                                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                                If anyone thought trading bad character, but good talent players would immediately lead to equally talented good character players, they were fooling themselves. One step at a time. Even then I don't think the downgrade was awful, but the team does look awful right now.
                                Maybe, but a lot of people thought this. Just check at the preseason predictions thread even.

                                Last year I think a member who is no longer here (or was it at Star) argued pointedly with me that removing Jackson would improve attendance. How's that working out? Fans don't care about thugs if the team is winning. Thugs became a conveniently guilt-free excuse for people with low tolerance for mediocre play. This was proven by the even lower attendance for an outright terrible team.


                                I stand by this - Jackson is a character guy. His issue is controlling his emotions and channeling them into consistently productive results. But this team does lack his toughness and emotion. They also lack the same from Ron, though he was just so unpredictable that it was too much (on court more than off).

                                I could live with Jack blowing his cool and honestly he wasn't at 8 Seconds or with Shawne Williams so it's not as simple as he was just the bad guy. He went too far in the brawl, but that whole thing was crazy before he got going even. And he made the wrong choice at Rio even if it did result in the end of that brawl.

                                My point is that while I agree that you can have good character guys with talent and shouldn't have to settle for less, I think the hype on how far off Jackson was from being that type of player was hyperbole. A guy with a will to win and the desire to play through pain, which he did all the time, are signs of good character.

                                And both Jackson and Al were more tradable than Mike and Troy are. If for no other reason than future deals it would be nice if we could go back and undo that trade in order to setup a true rebuild. The GS deal was far more like a financial commitment that said this group was ready to win.

                                Think about it like this, say you have the current Pacers all with no contracts. Do you sign all of them to what they have left? Do you sign Mike and Troy to those deals? Well that's what TPTB did when they traded for them, they basically signed those deals. That to me does say "this is the group we can win with so it's okay that we are locked in for so long".

                                I do think that's what they thought with that deal because otherwise you trade down in talent and contract size in preparation for a rebuild. What, Jackson couldn't get you a Willie Green caliber player on a cheaper deal?


                                It's certainly fair to say that THIS team, not some future one after more deals, is a team a lot of people felt good about. After the 3-0 start and the preseason plenty of people were hyping it up. After GS took off last year and the Pacers stumbled plenty of people defended THIS roster with "Rick's fault" and "gotta give them time to learn to play together".

                                You don't say that if you don't believe in them. Why would you want Rick fired if this team wasn't capable of winning anyway? You want that "fixed" because you think it's holding back a good team, not a team on a 2-3 year rebuild plan. Rick could coach through that process and come back with another 60 wins with those new, young players post-rebuild, guys who hadn't yet played 3-4 years for him and gotten burned out (another convenient excuse for players who are just spoiled).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X